<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (4) TMI 525 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406409</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Customs Act, 1962 does not have jurisdiction over the appellant, a Dubai-based company, for penalty imposition as the Act&#039;s provisions are limited to India and its territories. The penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed under Section 112(a) was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal criticized the authorized representative for not being updated with recent decisions and failing to assist the court effectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=641726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 525 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406409</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Customs Act, 1962 does not have jurisdiction over the appellant, a Dubai-based company, for penalty imposition as the Act&#039;s provisions are limited to India and its territories. The penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed under Section 112(a) was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal criticized the authorized representative for not being updated with recent decisions and failing to assist the court effectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>